Lev S. Vygotsky: The Man and the Era

Transcription

International Journal of Group Tensions, Vol. 28, Nos. 3/4, 1999
LEV S. VYGOTSKY: THE MAN AND THE ERA
Uwe P. Gielen
St. Francis College, New York City
Samvel S. Jeshmaridian
Institute of Cross-Cultural and Ethnic Studies, Armenia
ABSTRACT: Our interpretive essay situates the life and thought of the
famed psychologist-educator, Lev S. Vygotsky within the confines of the frequently deadly political and ideological struggles taking place in the Soviet
Union during the 1920s and 1930s. We analyze from a psychological point of
view Vygotsky's rise and fall in a situation of revolutionary social change,
"class struggle," "class hatred," ideological warfare, deliberately induced mass
starvation, and the development of a totalitarian state based on the systematic use of terror. Whereas most Western psychologists have given minimal
attention to the political and educational purposes for which Vygotsky's psychology was created, we emphasize that his Marxist orientation had a central
influence both on his scientific preoccupations and on the course of his life.
His revolutionary identity was anchored in a highly dynamic community with
shared goals possessing a semi-sacred quality. Consequently, he experienced
his later exclusion from this community as a kind of social and spiritual death.
My entire generation was infused with the energy of revolutionary
change—the liberating energy people feel when they are part of a society
that is able to make tremendous progress in a very short time.
Alexander R. Luria,
The Making of Mind: A Personal Account
of Soviet Psychology
We would like to thank Elena Bodrova, Kay Greene, Kirill Postoutenko, Maury Silver, Frank Sorrentino, and Denis G. Sukhodolsky for their perceptive comments regarding this paper. Given the contentious nature of some of our observations, it is only
natural that they cannot be held responsible for whatever misinterpretations may be
contained in our essay.
Correspondence regarding this article should be sent to Uwe P. Gielen, Department of
Psychology, St. Francis College, Brooklyn, NY 11201, USA; e-mail: [email protected]
273
0047-0732/99/1200-0273$16.00/0 © 1999 Human Sciences Press, Inc.
274
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GROUP TENSIONS
A quarter of the rural population, men, women, and children, lay dead
or dying, the rest in various stages of debilitation with no strength to
bury their families or neighbours.
Robert Conquest,
The Harvest of Sorrow: Soviet Collectivization
and the Terror-Famine
INTRODUCTION
Since the 1950s, Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky has been widely considered a key figure in 20th-century Russian psychology, an influential thinker and a prolific writer, who with his cultural-historical theory explored sociocognitive development. According to the main idea
of this theory, the development of all higher cognitive processes and
functions is by nature social and all social development has a cognitive basis. Social and cognitive processes are intertwined due to the
processes (mechanisms) of internalization and externalization. The
social basis of higher cognitive processes, in turn, is intertwined with
the economic conditions prevailing in a given society. Using Marxism
as a starting point Vygotsky developed a three-fold vision focusing
respectively on phylogenetic, socio-historical, and ontogenetic development (Vygotsky & Luria, 1930/1993). The three processes of development could be brought together by a common Marxist vision based
on the concepts of general and societal evolution, dialectical materialism, determinism, and the central importance of labor and of physical
and psychological tools. Within this Marxist vision Vygotsky's special
focus was on children's development and education within their historically and culturally constituted environments.
Vygotsky claimed that internalized signs mediate between environment and behavior, and that these sign-tools act as "psychological
tools" which structure memory, attention, self-control, intentional behavior, and other higher psychological processes and functions. Prominent among the internalized signs is that kind of thinking which is
shaped by or derived from the interiorization of speech. Speech, in
turn, develops out of social communication and social interaction. To
arrive at this way of thinking, Vygotsky followed a complicated route
which led him from the arts to philosophy and on to the experimental
sciences. His knowledge of the arts, various fields of science, world
Lev S. Vygotsky, Gielen / Jeshmaridian
275
literature, and the philosophical literature enriched his thinking and
made it both unique and very progressive for the time.
In this essay we use the example of Russia's greatest psychological
thinker to trace the situation of psychology research during the 1920s
and 1930s in order to arrive at a better understanding of the societal
situation of those decades. Describing the early years of the Soviet
society we briefly examine the creative life of a gifted person in a
situation of revolutionary change, "class struggle," "class hatred,"
ideological warfare, and the development of a totalitarian state based
on the systematic use of terror. Our interpretive essay is concerned
with social psychological, historical, and moral questions rather than
with the details and scientific validity of Vygotsky's theory.
Our emphasis on Vygotsky's Marxist identity derives in part from
the observation that this central aspect of his identity has frequently
been neglected by his American followers. When beginning in the
1960s, American psychologists began to rediscover Vygotsky they
often shoved aside the Marxist basis of his theorizing. We may note,
for instance, that when his important work Thought and Language
(Vygotsky, 1962) was first translated into English it was shorn of its
Marxist references. Perhaps this is not too surprising in a country
that had just gone through the rabidly anti-Communist McCarthy
era. Other Vygotskyites in the West have considered his Marxist
ideas to be of limited intellectual value when compared to the richness of his psychological legacy (1). Today, many of the more pragmatically oriented American psychologists treat Vygotsky's work as a
kind of psychological gold mine that exists to be plundered for nuggets of insight and wisdom and hints for new research. In contrast,
they tend to pay insufficient attention to the question how and for
what purpose this gold mine came into being in the first place.
An example may suffice. Recently, many American psychologists
have appropriated Vygotsky's concept of a Zone of Proximal Development, together with his idea that learning leads development. They
use this concept to explain how under the guidance of adults children
learn to accomplish actions that they later accomplish independently
(Vygotsky, 1978). For the Marxist educator Vygotsky—but not for
modern American psychologists—the idea of a Zone of Proximal Development contained political implications (Bodrova, personal communication, June 1997). The idea could be used to lend support to the
proclaimed goal of Soviet education: to create the new Soviet Man,
the kind of being that would be needed in the Soviet society of the
276
future. In this context it may be maintained that the concept of the
Zone of Proximal Development has a subtle authoritarian tinge which
distinguishes it, for instance, from Piaget's more democratic and individualistic emphasis on discovery learning.
Vygotsky considered himself first and foremost as a Marxist thinker
who wished to contribute in theory and praxis to the construction of
the newly evolving socialist society. He never doubted his commitment to Marxism and to the new society, and when toward the end of
his brief life he was confronted with the threat of "excommunication"
he grew despondent and disintegrated psychologically and physically.
At the same time Vygotsky lived in an era when millions of people
starved to death, were sent to labor camps, were murdered, and
fought each other both physically and ideologically. In this unfolding
tragedy Vygotsky was both an accomplice and a victim, sleepwalking
through the creation of a monster state, which at the end of his life
was ready to destroy him. His early death kept him from fully realizing that Marxism-in-theory and Marxism-in-Soviet-reality were and
had to be two entirely different things (2). In this limited but fundamental sense he and his coworkers were poor psychologists, since
they failed to comprehend the psychological mechanisms set into motion by the Bolshevik revolution, though it was just those mechanisms which would soon determine their lives. Instead, they preferred
to live in a kind of Marxist ideological fog that protected them from
seeing the harsh realities of Soviet life and their role in helping to
create them.
The Revolution and its aftermath had liberated Vygotsky from the
stifling restrictions of ghettoized life in a provincial town, and he responded to this liberation by eagerly committing himself to the idealistic revolutionary goals, as he understood them. At the same time his
commitment prevented him from seeing that he was lending his support to a cause that destroyed the lives of perhaps 24 million people
between the start of the 1917 Revolution and the end of his life in
1934 (Conquest, 1986; Figes, 1996). More bloodshed and more misery
were to follow.
THE SON OF THE SILVER AGE
Vygotsky came from a rather well-to-do Jewish family and spent his
early childhood in Orsha, a provincial place between Minsk and
Gomel, Belarus. His heritage was both Russian and Jewish, and he
277
shared both cultures equally. Vygotsky viewed himself as a son of the
Silver Age of Russian culture, looking back with admiration to the
Golden Age of Russian literature during the 19th century, but also
looking forward to a future when Russia's general backwardness would
be overcome through decisive revolutionary action accompanied by social and cultural transformation.
During childhood Vygotsky's most important books were the Talmud and the Torah in Hebrew. They taught him how best to conduct
one's life thereby shaping his worldview. Combined with his brilliant
mind, Vygotsky's knowledge of the Talmud and the Torah continued
to exert a considerable influence on his civilian and everyday activities as well as his scientific approach. Later, he would endorse a historical and dialectical approach which reflected a similar dramatic
emphasis on cultural-historical development, the struggle between
good and evil forces, collective action, the hope for collective salvation,
insight into the ultimate meaning of history, and the same comprehensive quality that he had learned to appreciate in the Talmud and
the Torah. Historical materialism and dialectical materialism became
the centers of his worldview and his chosen methods (3) to approach
the decisive questions of social existence.
When tracing Vygotsky's biography, one comes to realize that he
could have succeeded in almost any area of human activity and any
field of human knowledge. And he did. He received a very broad education that left many alternatives open to him. At the university he
enrolled first in medicine for one month but then switched to law.
Later to come were philology, then linguistics, then philosophy, and
finally, psychology. Though he did not receive a systematic education
in psychology, he studied both historical thinkers and many of the
most important thinkers of his time. Influenced by most of the psychological and philosophical trends of his time, he was enriched by
them but never became a simple follower of any of them.
Vygotsky became a significant force in Soviet psychology following
his move to Moscow in 1924 (Daniels, 1996, p. 49), where in the late
1920s he worked together with a group of talented collaborators.
Though still young, the well read, charismatic, ever talkative but
fragile Vygotsky provided the central theoretical inspiration for this
group (Luria, 1979). These included Alexander Luria, Alexei Leontiev,
Lidia Bozhovich, Alexander Zaporozhets, Natalia Morozova, Rosa
Levina, and Liya Slavina.
Vygotsky completed most of his work on psychology in a mere ten
years while suffering from bouts of tuberculosis. But no matter how
278
difficult his environment and how debilitating his illness, Vygotsky
continued writing under an inner creative compulsion. Given these
conditions and his essentially literary imagination, many of his writings possess a sketchy, hurried, and impressionistic quality. His work
remained an unfinished torso, with much of it unpublished for many
years because of political and other reasons.
Vygotsky's explorations started with the arts, proceeded to the natural sciences, and ended up with experimental psychology. They were
highly fruitful. First, he wrote what remains to this day one of the
best books on the psychology of art (The Psychology of Art, which remains underestimated by both Russian and American researchers). It
focuses on Hamlet, his favorite character (see below). Later, Vygotsky
wrote Thinking and Speech and Mind and Society: The Development
of Higher Psychological Processes.
Vygotsky wrote successively about experimental psychology, "defectology," Kornilov's reactology, Pavlov's theory (a critical appraisal),
and Freudo-Marxism (an attack), to finally develop his culturalhistorical (or historico-cultural) theory which makes contributions not
only to psychology but also to cultural anthropology. Vygotsky developed ideas about concept formation and the relationship between
thought and speech and between thought and motives, thereby making contributions to psycholinguistics and sociocognitive theorizing.
Some of his main ideas and findings remain actual and valuable even
today. More generally, Vygotsky's talent enriched three major areas of
knowledge of the time: Linguistics, Psychology, and Anthropology.
A HAMLETIAN SPIRIT WITH MARXIST DISPOSITIONS
While attending gymnasium in the town of Gomel, Vygotsky began
to write his most passionate and personal work, an analysis of Shakespeare's Hamlet which he later submitted successfully as his doctoral
dissertation. Russian intellectuals have often sublimated their religious strivings in literature and art, and the young Vygotsky followed
this time honored tradition. He was in so many ways a Hamletian
type of personality referring, for instance, to "My Hamlet" when defending his dissertation in 1916, and also afterwards. In his dissertation Vygotsky exhibited a fine feeling for the seemingly metaphysical
forces that manifest themselves in Hamlet's mysterious encounters
with ghosts and shadows, and he fully identified himself with the
death-haunted, existential hero. Given Vygotsky's early debilitating
279
encounters with tuberculosis, the romantic opposition of the forces of
life and death in Hamlet's youthful character found a ready echo in
his lively adolescent soul. He responded deeply to Hamlet's brooding
melancholy and to his awareness of the solitariness of human existence which time brings soon to its inevitable end (Kozulin, 1990).
On the eve of the 1917 Bolshevik revolution, Vygotsky seems to
have suffered from a deeply rooted existential alienation in which,
perhaps, personal discontent and discontent with the seemingly disastrous course of Russian society were intermingled. Given this psychological situation Vygotsky was ready to listen to the Bolshevik
siren calls for national (and ultimately universal) redemption and societal reconstruction. For him, the bloody destruction of the old society ushered in a new era of passionate commitment and hope. (4)
Like others, Vygotsky seems to have become attracted to Marxism
because he perceived it as modern, scientific, and future-directed in
contrast to the dismal conditions under the Czarist regime which was
reactionary, dogmatic, anti-Semitic, and lagging behind West and
Central European political developments. In this context it was natural that Vygotsky should have become a Marxist scientist, adopting
Marxist versions of determinism and dialectics as his analytical tools.
Vygotsky believed that the Marxist perspective provided the key for
solving crucial scientific dilemmas and for overcoming the "crisis of
psychology" (Buhler, 1927) of those days. Having as a Jew endured all
the fears of progroms and oppressions in Gomel, his hometown, he
looked at Marxian ideology and at Bolshevik promises of proletarian
freedom as representing rational, humanistic, and European promises of salvation and redemption.
Two directions in Jewish thought were then widespread representing the evolutionary and the revolutionary ways of trying to overcome
Russia's general backwardness. Vygotsky belonged to the revolutionary wing.
In the early 1920s, discussions about the best way to use Marxism
were still in progress. For about 15 years after the Bolshevik revolution the role of and various perspectives within Marxism continued to
be debated more or less openly. The social democrat Martov, for instance, was discussing Marxian political issues in a European style of
discussion. In a letter to the Central Committee of the Communist
Party in January 1921, Martov expressed his doubts as to the relevance of Marxist economic doctrine to the post-war world: "The state
of the world is at present so exceptional that it does not at all fit into
our usual schemes of Marxist analysis; to infer the main line of devel-
280
opment requires fresh scientific study which would significantly add
to and might possibly change the economic conceptions of Marx"
(Getzler, 1967, p. 225). (The young Vygotsky, too, derived from Hegel,
Marx, and Engels more a general approach than a specific theory concerning psychology, which in his view remained to be developed.)
Martov was soon accused of violating Party discipline, exiled for disobedience, and died in exile in 1923. His party comrade V. I. Lenin
played a major role in that. The suppressing mechanisms in the
Party, the systematic exploitation of class hatreds, and the calculated
use of terror were not invented in one day, but they were nevertheless
inherent to the Party. They constituted the chief aspects of the Bolsheviks' Party discipline and of their approach to dealing with political disagreements and problems.
Marxist-Leninist discussions and "dialogues" were becoming usual
for psychology, and naturally prevailed also in ideological debates,
politics, and economics. At times, they appeared to have a hidden
agenda, namely to discover the intellectuals and important thinkers
in the various intellectual fields and areas of activity, to set them
against each other, and to ensure that they would destroy each other
(5). In politics the end of relatively free Marxist discussions occurred
already in the early 1920s, in political economics in the second half of
the 1920s, in pedagogy and psychology in the mid-1930s, and in biology during the late 1930s. Thus, in the early 1930s, restrictions of
Bolshevik scientists against freethinking about social issues appeared.
Many in the new generation of Bolsheviks were poorly educated, resented those with higher education, and were suspicious of them.
They could easily enforce their restrictions in a fragile society, which
for a brief period had been trying to become open.
As a result of local party meetings and "scientific discussions,"
great thinkers were turned into victims and scapegoats, helping the
Bolshevik/Communist Party to "reveal the hidden enemies of the people." In this context Vygotsky's foremost coworker, Luria abandoned
his study of cultural psychology to concentrate on the clinical aspects
of neuropsychology, which saved him from getting involved in most of
the ongoing ideological and political disputes (Luria, 1979). Vygotsky
himself was not attacked directly, but nevertheless was implicitly
perceived as a persona non grata.
Between 1929 and 1934 (the year of Vygotsky's death), the Communist Party waged war against the "reactionary" peasantry of the
U.S.S.R., who made up four-fifths of the population. Following Leninist-Stalinist theory, the leadership decided to destroy the peasantry
281
through the twin processes of "dekulakization" and collectivization,
since they perceived an independent peasantry as posing a major
threat to the rule of the Communist Party. Dekulakization meant the
deportation or outright killing of millions of kulaks, a term which in
practice referred to those peasants who either owned small plots of
land or who resisted the Party's plans in any way (Conquest, 1986).
Most surviving peasants were concentrated in kolkhozes (collective
farms), under the control of the state. These events were followed by
a deliberately induced terror-famine, resulting in the additional deaths
of millions of surviving peasants and members of the kolkhozes. In
the Ukraine and in parts of Soviet Central Asia (such as today's
Kazakhstan), perhaps one-fourth of the population lost their lives
during this terrifying sequence of events, which should be considered
one of the great crimes of the century (Conquest, 1986).
While these events were beginning to unfold, Vygotsky prepared
and, in 1931 and 1932, Luria organized two psychological expeditions
to Soviet Central Asia to validate Vygotsky's Marxist hypothesis
about the close connection between the political-economic and the
social-cognitive dimensions of human existence. Vygotsky predicted
that the ongoing change from the "feudalistic" conditions prevailing
in the traditional villages of Uzbekistan and Kirgizia to the more
modern, scientific, and collective forms of agricultural production in
the kolkhozes would induce former peasants to think in less "primitive" and more modern, "scientific," and logical ways about cognitive
and social issues and problems. Many years later, Luria (1974, 1976)
would publish in more detail some of the results of these expeditions.
They seemed to prove that, for instance, the traditional, mostly illiterate Muslim peasants and pastoralists in his study were unable to
solve simple syllogisms or to engage in counter-factual thinking, because their minds remained wedded to the concrete circumstances of
their lives. In contrast, some of the more modern and better educated
persons gathered in the kolkhozes and elsewhere comprehended many
of the syllogisms and could also engage in counter-factual thinking
and in thinking about hypothetical situations. In Piagetian terms, the
latter findings would seem to indicate the presence of some kind of
formal operational thinking.
Vygotsky and Luria, however, were sharply criticized for their
"cross-historical" and cross-cultural interpretations of the expeditions'
results, which they had published in two brief, preliminary articles
(see below).
Vygotsky and Luria's experiments and their interpretations of their
282
results were based on Marxist assumptions about the evolution of society, an evolution that "Socialist Reconstruction" was trying to hurry
along in a forceful way. While celebrating their experimental results
as providing important support for their cultural-historical theory,
the two psychologists conveniently overlooked the endless suffering,
naked terror, and brutal Russian imperialism that went hand in hand
with "Socialist progress" in Uzbekistan, Kirgizia, Kazakhstan, and
elsewhere. Their Marxist convictions and their (implicit) Marxist
"idealism" blinded them to the sheer inhumanity of Socialist Reconstruction and to the strangeness of the idea that proletarian freedom
could be won by starving peasants into submission, sending them to
the gulags, or killing them outright.
It might be useful in this context to try explaining how Vygotsky's
humanistic idealism demanded that he close his eyes to the deeply
destructive nature of Bolshevik revolutionary action. Idealism is in
general based on a person's unwillingness and motivated inability to
perceive his or her Jungian shadow and the shadows of idealized
others, that is, both one's own and the others' inherent potential for
deception, self-deception, indifference, destructiveness, and cravings
for power. Such tendencies are then unconsciously projected onto
one's (perceived) adversaries, enemies, and members of various outgroups and outcasts (e.g., capitalists, "enemies of the people," traitors
of the Proletarian cause, Muslim and other clerics, kulaks, conservative thinkers declared to be reactionaries, etc.). Seen in this light,
idealism goes hand in hand with a form of self-deception that helps
the person maintain a more acceptable picture of oneself and certain
others. It points to a lack of a special form of courage, which otherwise would guide the person "to face the music" and to see self,
others, and life as they are rather than as one wants them (and fears
them) to be. For all his creative psychological theorizing, Vygotsky
tended to be such an idealist for much of his life, neither fully understanding himself, nor his complicity in the supposedly liberating but
in fact highly destructive drive toward a Communist society, nor
Lenin and Stalin and their henchmen and apparatchiks (6). The task
of understanding his rapidly changing society was made more difficult for Vygotsky because there was no historical model of how a Communist society might develop and go astray.
A further reason for Vygotsky's (and Luria's) refusal to seriously
question what was going on lay in their privileged position as members of the Soviet intelligentsia. Although Marxist intellectuals typically claim that they act and think on behalf of "the people," they are
in fact (or implicitly expect to become) part of the power elite of their
283
country. The deeply corrupting influence of this kind of power pervades the whole history of Communist nations, and though Vygotsky
was more resistant to such influences than his coworkers Leontiev
and Luria, he could not escape them altogether. In addition, Vygotsky
had for medical reasons remained in Moscow during the expeditions,
and so he was not directly exposed to the events then beginning to
take place in far off Central Asia or in Ukraine. The expeditions'
leader, Luria, however, apparently wished to remain oblivious to the
mass destruction perpetrated by the Soviet State to the end of his life
in 1977. Like many others before and after him he engaged in willing
suspension of disbelief. The two quotes by Luria and Conquest at the
beginning of this essay demonstrate the enormous gap between the
horrifying realities of life in the Soviet Union and Luria's non-seeing
perception and enthusiastic evaluation of what had indeed occurred.
While for Luria society was progressing in leaps and bounds, for the
kulaks and many others this "progress" meant famine, exile to Siberia,
death, destruction of their traditional form of existence, and servitude
as serfs of the state.
In 1936, The Central Committee of the Communist Party issued a
special Executive Decree banning "tests" (testi) and outlawing "pedology" (Takooshian & Trusov, 1992). Pedology was a kind of actionoriented educational psychology emphasizing a psychological approach
to child development, testing, and certain kinds of intervention by
educators. Because Vygotsky was both a leading representative of pedology and a central figure behind the expedition to Soviet Central
Asia, he had committed two deadly sins. On one hand, he wanted to
"classify" Soviet children into groups according to their thinking abilities; on the other hand, he tried by his theory to prove that some
peoples or social classes within an "absolutely free country" were
more advanced than others. This decree meant that Vygotsky's ideas,
in general, were now considered "bourgeois" in nature and as lying
outside Marxism-Leninism.
Vygotsky may serve an example of a kind of Marxist thinker who is
in search of Marxist truth, while trying to develop a metacognitive
dimension of human learning in relation to development (Ivic, 1989).
Because he was a cosmopolitan thinker, he was bound to become a
target for the attacks of the new Bolsheviks, who themselves were
slavophilic, ideologically and politically intolerant, and enmeshed in
the mechanisms of political power which were evolving into an ever
more totalitarian state. Furthermore, some of the slavophilic proponents used code language to hide anti-Semitic ideas and purposes.
While the time of "open and free" discussions was coming to an end,
284
the stage of revolutionary scapegoating was beginning. In the early
1930s, the time for creating victims in the field of psychology had
arrived. Unable to understand why this should be so, Vygotsky nevertheless realized that he was now considered to be outside Marxism.
In this context, Bluma Zeigarnik, Vygotsky's assistant in a psychiatric
clinic, remembers how Vygotsky ran to and fro in the clinic, saying, "I
do not want to live any more, they do not want to consider me a
Marxist" (Joravsky, 1989; Van der Veer & Valsiner, 1991). While it
may be difficult for non-Marxists to understand Vygotsky's despondency, it is useful in this context to remember the powerful descriptions by Koestler and others of the psychological disorientation that
former Marxists tend to experience when they leave the Party, or are
excommunicated from it (Crossman, 1950; Koestler, 1941). For the
sensitive and highly social Vygotsky, the Party provided a home and
Communism a philosophy of life that provided hope and meaning to
his suffering. When he realized that he had been placed outside this
home, his hopes dwindled, the meaning of his existence evaporated,
and he had to face death alone. It must have seemed doubtful to him
that the legacy of his brief life would survive in the face of rapidly
mounting political hostilities.
Vygotsky also realized that according to the values now prevailing
around him, "Man was created for Sabbath, not Sabbath for Man." By
this he meant that ideas exist to serve man, rather than man being
the servant of ideas; Marxism should serve society and the people,
rather than the other way around. As a free thinker, he liked to cite
the New Testament but such citations were now becoming more and
more dangerous; they meant that one would be blamed for religious
feelings and for the unforgivable sin of idealism in a society where
materialism and atheism had become the obligatory way of scientific
thinking. Given that philosophical materialism is in direct conflict
with philosophical idealism, Vygotsky's use of independent ideas (including his use of religious or psychological concepts) was perceived
as a threat to Marxist-Leninist ideology and its conception of class
warfare.
IN SEARCH OF A CENTRAL ORGANIZING FORCE
According to Vygotsky's theory, culture organizes human cognition,
and human conduct is intertwined with all higher psychological functions, as they emerge in ontogeny.
285
The Soviet policy-makers declared that the Communist Party was
the only organizing force of Soviet life, which meant that the Party
had to be involved in every facet of Soviet life. The Soviet State
viewed itself as the principal source of the arts, the sciences, and the
everyday life of its citizens, who were becoming now tools of the
state.
Both the dominant leaders of the Bolshevik Party and Vygotsky
were in search of "a true organizer," that is, the one and only organizing principle. In this sense both sides were true Marxists. Their ways
diverged, however, when they discussed the functions of Marxism,
which, in Vygotsky's words, concerned the question of whether Man
was to serve Sabbath, or Sabbath Man. The Bolshevik leaders did not
oppose Vygotsky's "culture-organizing force" as such, but in a supposedly modest way they "had to" admit that they were indeed the
source and core of the Soviet culture. The leaders' satellites and followers, in turn, supported the claims of their leaders and were eager
to prove their loyalty and ideological purity.
The search for a central organizing principle and for ideological purity created an air of almost religious zeal, fanaticism, and intolerance together with many inner anxieties. Marxism-Leninism became a kind of Ersatzreligion (literally, replacement-religion), that is,
it functioned like a monotheistic religion in its first, most revolutionary, and most intolerant stage of development. Marxism-Leninism
combines a more or less scientific political, economic, and sociological
analysis of society with an irrational, secular mythology of salvation
and redemption derived from Judaeo-Christian sources. Based on a
linear view of history, it assigns special importance to the Party (the
central organizing principle), that is, a group of believers whose eschatological task it is to establish the kingdom of Communism on
earth. Because it is derived from and functions like a monotheistic
belief system and faith, Marxism-Leninism encourages the same kind
of intolerance that has been endemic to dogmatic monotheism with its
basis in canonical writings (7). Its believers are encouraged to search
for a true understanding of the canonical writings of charismatic figures such as Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin, and this sets into motion a process of ideological debate and disagreement, ideological warfare, ideologically driven soul searching, accusations of heresy, threats
of excommunication, and the formation of emotionally charged groups
of believers dedicating themselves to the salvation of humankind in
the face of external and internal evil which must be destroyed. The
presence of internal evil demands special vigilance, and heretics must
286
be ferreted out and ruthlessly persecuted if Communism is to be
victorious.
Many Soviet Marxists found in the Party a home where they formed
intense if frequently conflicted and ambivalent bonds with each other.
In Eriksonian terms they assumed a "totalistic identity," an identity
anchored in a highly dynamic, struggling community with shared
goals possessing a semi-sacred quality. Their lives were now focused
on a powerful and deeply moral purpose lifting them out of and above
their otherwise quotidian existence. For Vygotsky as well as for many
others, to be excluded from such a community meant a kind of socialspiritual death, and a confrontation with the stark fact that they had
staked their existence on a chimera. Few were ready for such a confrontation with their illusions and distorted self-perceptions. Furthermore, Marxist thought does not encourage psychological thinking
about one's self, since it focuses the mind on political, economic, and
sociological categories rather than on obscure psychological processes
occurring within one's unique self. For hardened Communists, too
much introspection implies bourgeois selfishness and a kind of softness unbecoming to true working-class fighters engaged in a life and
death struggle. Instead, the needs of the self must be submerged in
the service of collective higher goals. In exchange for this submersion,
the self feels itself enlarged and as a part of a struggling community
of believers shaping the destiny of the nation and of humanity. As the
French sociologist Durkheim pointed out long ago, religion relies on
very much the same "sociological" mechanisms that were at work in
those supposedly scientifically based Communist communities (Durkheim, 1926).
Since few of the believers were fully prepared to face the stark realities of Soviet life, and since there is always a ready supply of pragmatically oriented persons in search of advancement, it was easy to
find scholars ready to serve the developing Leviathan, the Soviet
State. Alexei N. Leontiev (1903-1979), the former coworker of Vygotsky and later the leader of Soviet psychology, was one of them. "We
all know that Marxist psychology is not one of many directions, one of
many schools, but a new historical stage, the stage that is the beginning of a truly scientific and logical materialist psychology. We also
have always been sure that in the contemporary world psychology has
an ideological function, it serves class interests" (Leontiev, p. 4, cited
in Yaroshevsky, 1996, p. 176). While it was not exactly obligatory to
claim that Marxism is the only true science that has ever existed in
this world, it surely was useful to do so, because, by repeating that
287
false phrase, one could become more secure and powerful, destroy
others, assume authority, and acquire many worldly items. In addition, one could feel oneself to be in the vanguard of a world historical
movement toward a classless society which served the true interests
of the formerly dispossessed.
From official Soviet sources we learn that in 1930 a constellation of
circumstances forced Alexei Leontiev to resign from the Academy of
Communist Education in Moscow (Leontiev, A. A., 1983, p. 11), but he
continued working in Kharkov, then the capital of the Ukraine, together with A. Zaporozhets, L. I. Bozhovich, A. Zaporozhets, and P.
Zinchenko. They established a program in developmental psychology
focusing on the problems of the internalization of cognitive operations
and the relation between the external activity of a child and the mental operations corresponding to it. While Vygotsky had focused on the
mediation role of signs and symbols, the Kharkov group devoted their
entire attention to the psychological aspects of concrete activities,
emphasizing the internalization of sensorimotor schemes in higher
mental functioning. Alexei Leontiev's (1932) study of natural and instrumentally mediated memory and attention remains a classical example of such an approach. Subsequently, he developed his activity
theory which represented, at least in part, a response to immediate
political circumstances. The Kharkovites were attempting to develop
the analysis of mediation through activity in such a way that it would
fit into the dominant interpretation of Marx arising in the latter part
of the 1930s in the Soviet Union (Daniels, 1996, p. 8; Kozulin, 1990,
p. 247). Their understanding and interpretation of the determination
and organization of higher mental functions diverged from Vygotsky's, because they emphasized the direct, "psychophysiological" internalization of class-based, productive activities in the process of labor. Because this theory sounded so wonderfully Marxist in character,
the emerging gap between Vygotsky's original ideas and the Kharkovites' scientific orientation served to ensure the political survival of
the Kharkov group.
The Communist leaders succeeded in a masterful way in making
scientific schools fight each other. Once a winner had emerged in
these struggles, his position would then be declared the only truly
Marxist and scientific one by the dominant leaders. Such a sequence
of events occurred in many different fields including philosophy, biology, linguistics, political economics, and psychology (Solzhenitsyn,
1973, p. 50). The Party had only limited interest in science, unless it
gave the Party leaders power and control over the citizens or led to
288
fame in the international arena. In this way, Soviet science tended to
become an instrument for political manipulation and suppression. A
key mechanism for glorifying one scientist or group while suppressing
other scientists or groups was the Communist local organization
meeting where one scientist and thereby his group was criticized,
while another group was extolled. In this way, the Kharkov group
became politically accepted and grew to be dominant over Vygotsky's
group.
THE THEATER OF THE ABSURD
According to a general notion prevailing in the former Soviet Union,
Marxism-Leninism serves two functions: the scientific function, indicating that it represents the only true methodology of research, exploration, and investigation; and the ideological function, which means
that it is the proper instrument for fighting against the enemies of
the people, in the name of the revolution. The battle would help overthrow the old society and usher in a new and better world. In the
presence of class struggle and class hatred, Marxism in the hands of
the Soviet leaders became a notoriously useful weapon of destruction.
The first function of Marxism-Leninism manifested itself in the
form of debates in the sciences, humanities, arts, and so on, which
depended on covert inner mechanisms of conformism and masochistic
respect for authority. The debates were both of a primitive and an
aggressive character, and scientists were frequently ridiculed for or
accused of not being atheists, since scholars were expected to be "combative atheists." There was no privacy at all. The Communist leaders
of local organizations had or took the right to instruct both developing
communists and various Party nonmembers within their organization or in their community, teaching them how to live, behave, and
think.
These debates were first carried into the Communist cells existing
in all organizations, such as faculties, institutes, the academy's party
organizations, and also into the mass media which were instructed to
agitate and disseminate communist propaganda. This way the debates were carried into the sciences. For instance, the "crisis of Western psychology" (Buhler, 1927) was explained by claiming that Western psychological theories were idealistic rather than materialistic
and atheistic. Vygotsky with his vivid and creative imagination was
frequently viewed as a conflict-ridden person and scientist, attacking
both Freudo-Marxists (those who wanted to enrich Marxism with
289
Freudian ideas and epistemology), and the principles of Pavlovian
physiology. Pavlovian physiology, however, was later declared the officially correct form of psychology. In this tense atmosphere, the scientific debates frequently took on the form of personal battles. They
exhibited a special intensity because the contestants' personal welfare and survival were frequently at stake. At the same time few
dividing lines separated scientific disagreement from ideological warfare, since Marxism encourages one to interpret all social scientific
activity from an ideological point of view. Few seemed to realize that
the scientific approach is inherently incompatible with any Marxist
ideology claiming to be based on "Truth."
Labeling was an accepted form of scientific activity, and during his
last years Vygotsky was among those who at times used this kind of
"explanation" and criticism in his writings. For example, he likened
Piaget to Mach and Bogdanov, who had already been ideologically and
logically "crushed and ground" by Lenin in his famous Materialism
and Empiriocriticism (1908). In Vygotsky's view Piaget, like Mach
and Bogdanov, was "a prisoner of philosophical agnosticism, which
begins with attempted reduction of mind to biological functions and
ends unavoidably in idealism . . ." (Joravsky, 1989, p. 361) (8). It was
so modern and so tempting to simultaneously label and accuse a scientist of being a reductionist and an idealist. Vygotsky, in turn, was
soon labeled and accused at the Communist Academy of Education's
party meetings because he "offended Soviet children." (Note: Vygotsky, not his theory.)
Besides labeling, however, Vygotsky was also in search of the "psychological cell," which for him meant the search for the basic unit of
analysis and ultimately, the central psychological truth. Vygotsky was
a monist rather than a pluralist who believed that he or one of his
successors would one day crack the nut of psychology and discover
once and for all the fundamental psychological cell. When he criticized others he usually meant that their theories did not constitute
"the psychological cell," since they obviously failed to solve key "methodological" ( = basic metatheoretical) problems in psychology. What he
did was not mere labeling in the sense discussed above; rather, it
represented his wish to improve the criticized theory.
Marxism in its second function is a program to destroy capitalism
through the use of class struggle and class hatred. Such a program
clearly relies on psychological mechanisms. In the Marxist view, the
resulting destruction will automatically result in a new and ideal
world.
At the local party meetings, the scientific-methodological and the
290
ideological functions of Marxism were being manipulated in such a
way that few could see (or wanted to see) Vygotsky's search for truth
and his fruitful approach in solving psychological problems. Vygotsky
was becoming dangerous because of his free way of thinking, which
was considered a kind of disease at the time. In addition, Vygotsky
was physically dangerous to his surroundings: he was suffering from
contagious tuberculosis, then an incurable disease.
Because intellectual talent has only rarely been considered important in Russian culture, Vygotsky's openness, sincere faith in Marxism, genuine search for truth, and depth of thought were understood
by only a few of his contemporaries. In contrast to Vygotsky's intellectual honesty, many of his peers and successors began to shape their
psychological theories according to the Party's ideological wishes and
requirements. They grew into more or less willing members of a "selfsuppressing society."
THE SELF-SUPPRESSING SOCIETY
How could Stalin suppress so many people? One explanation is that
by manipulating his enemies, Stalin did not destroy party comrades
directly, rather, he used to set up "his enemies to destroy each other"
(Rigby, 1966, p. 17). Citizens, peasants, artists, scientists, friends, bureaucrats, all social groups and classes were both his enemies and
also enemies to each other. In the name of class struggle and for the
sake of socialism, Russian culture, and international patriotism they
were all too willing to destroy each other just to be loved by the Communist Party and by Stalin, the father of the peoples of the Soviet
Union. "The established impression that he [Stalin] slaughtered, tortured, imprisoned, and oppressed on a grand scale is not an error. On
the other hand, it is impossible to understand this immensely gifted
politician by attributing solely to him all the crimes and suffering of
his era, or to conceive him simply as a monster and a mental case.
From youth until death he was a fighter in what he, as many others,
regarded as a just war" (McNeal, 1988, p. 312). Stalin's conception of
a just war, however, did not exclude a kind of instinctive paranoia,
utter ruthlessness, and a powerful streak of opportunism. Still, it
should be kept in mind that Stalin did not create Soviet society;
rather, it was Soviet society which created Stalin and allowed him to
live out his suspicious and dark impulses seething beneath the veneer
of a seemingly humanistic ideology (9).
291
To understand the psychological picture of what was happening we
must follow the activities of Leading Bolsheviks. This, in turn, will
help us understand better the social psychological orientation of Bolshevik small groups of all levels. Each Bolshevik was considered a
leader of a group, and every Bolshevik within the group was expected
to educate new Bolsheviks in the way of true Marxism-Leninism (by
"illuminating" them). All the members had to think the same way as
the Leading Bolshevik since the latter's tools were the unbeatable
and only true way of thinking—Marxism-Leninism. Those unable "to
think the right way" had to keep silent or the Leading Bolshevik
would become angry or sarcastic. Should the situation be an especially important one for the Leading Communist or the Party, then
the others were soon declared vragi naroda, that is, enemies of the
people. These enemies had to be destroyed in the interests of the
Party, the State, and the people, and these interests were perceived
to be one and the same.
Both the leading and the developing Bolsheviks would declare that
they were fighting against the supposed class enemies but for the
true class interests. In reality, however, they frequently fought each
other to protect their own interests. A newly developing Bolshevik
might be striving to become the leader of his or her group and a beloved person for his or her superior. Any Leading Bolshevik might
also be trying to attain nationwide importance so that he or she
might be noticed by the Party's highest leaders, and perhaps even by
the father of the peoples of the Soviet Union himself. On the whole,
the actions of Leading Bolsheviks did not represent mere conformism
or bad faith. It is more likely that these people "bought their own
line."
Such was Vygotsky's social environment which tacitly expected him
to become a Leading Bolshevik, too. In this context one can understand why his colleagues kept their distance and failed to support
him emotionally when his political situation became unbearable during the early 1930s.
In many respects the Russian intellectuals created the myth of Stalin and supported the development of Leading Bolsheviks. Vygotsky,
however, could not develop such a personality, since he lacked both
the necessary desire and the ability to deceive himself in the necessary ways, nor was he given to the demagogical use of Marxist slogans (Valsiner, 1988, p. 125). His conflict was not with Marxism (as
he understood it), but only with those who called themselves Bolshevik scientists. Vygotsky's future conflict with Stalinism was
292
unavoidable. But the Bolsheviks' cunning political mechanisms consistently undermined strivings for honor and openness. Therefore
Vygotsky had to be driven into deep intrapsychic conflict, rendering
him incapable of fighting the injustices overtly. The suppressive
mechanisms were already set into motion, and Vygotsky became a
convenient target. Keeping silent, fulfilling definite political functions
without thinking, and "fighting for the bright future of the working
people" were now considered the sacred goals of all true Soviet citizens. The people of the Soviet Union were told that if one were to
openly state one's thoughts, turmoil in the community or in the whole
nation would be the inevitable consequence. Neither Vygotsky nor his
friends guessed that those mechanisms would soon swallow many of
them and grind them into the dust.
The further decline of Vygotsky's civil and scientific activities coincided with the intensification of Stalin's dictatorship, which was built
upon three pillars: "(a) Total control over all aspects of social life
through a system of interlocking bureaucratic hierarchies, directed by
members of the dictator's entourage, who were responsible to him
alone; (b) prophylactic terror exercised by a secret police network endowed with arbitrary powers of arrest and punishment; and (c) a dogmatic and mythologized ideology, centering around the cult of the
leader" (Rigby, 1966, p. 16).
In the last months of his brief life, Vygotsky had to struggle not
merely for his life, but above all for some form of moral and psychological existence. He suffered under the indifference of his friends,
from loneliness due to his physical isolation, and from the scientific
and political criticisms of his position at the Party meetings which
took place in his absence at the Institute. If one is to believe Vygotsky's close collaborator Bluma Zeigarnik, Vygotsky at the end of his
life "did everything not to live."
CRITICISMS OF THE CULTURAL-HISTORICAL APPROACH
AND ITS LATER FATE
During his lifetime and afterward, Vygotsky's theories and legacy
were criticized from at least four corners, which have already been
touched upon (10).
One decisive source of criticism was the Communist Party's 1936
Decree condemning and outlawing pedology and banning tests (Takooshian & Trusov, 1992). It represented a strong trend to repress all
293
liberal and independent thought in Soviet psychology. As a group,
psychologists were unable to mount any resistance against such decrees because they, as skillfully advancing Leading Bolsheviks, were
engaged in a bitter struggle with each other for survival's sake. Since
Vygotsky was one of the founders of pedology, and since the latter
was attacked by the leading Soviet ideologists, Vygotsky's whole legacy was banned, and pedology and Vygotsky's cultural-historical theories were declared to be identical. Meanwhile, Vygotsky's colleagues
and followers were branded as some kind of groupthink victims.
Given these developments, his theory remained poorly known until
the mid 1950s, when after Khrushchev's denunciations of Stalinism,
Leontiev and Luria managed to publish many of Vygotsky's main
works.
The second line of criticism, which represents a continuation of the
first one, emerged as a result of the Kharkovites' attitudes toward
Vygotsky's ideas. When the Party's restrictions were still in their beginning stage, the Kharkov group of psychologists, both because of
political considerations and also because of scientific disagreements
and misunderstandings, managed to create a certain scientific and
ideological distance between Vygotsky and themselves. For instance,
Leontiev claimed that the "development of the consciousness of a
child occurs as a result of the development of the system of psychological operations; which in their turn, are determined by the actual
relations between a child and reality" (Leontiev, 1935/1980, p. 186).
Similarly, Peter Zinchenko (1939/1984) claimed that concrete, practical, sensuous activity provides the crucial mediation between the
individual and reality whereas Vygotsky had insisted that such an
activity, in order to fulfill its role as a psychological tool, must necessarily be of a semiotic character (Kozulin, 1996, p. 113). The principle
of the importance of "actual relations with reality," which was in contradiction to Vygotsky's semiotic, historico-cultural ideas, was becoming highly popular among psychology aparatchiks and generally accepted by the orthodox Marxist-Leninists. "Vygotsky understood the
Marxist perspective idealistically," Zinchenko (1939/1984, p. 67) would
write in 1939—and thus condemn him.
Beginning in the 1950s, Leontiev, the author of activity theory, became the official interpreter of Vygotsky's cultural-historical theory
and of his legacy at least as far as the influential "Moscow school" of
psychology is concerned. Leontiev claimed falsely that activity theory,
which stresses the "activity-consciousness unity principle," represented the authentic interpretation of Vygotsky's ideas on the role of
294
mediation in human activity. In some psychology departments and
institutes, this interpretation became the only acceptable version of
the history of Soviet psychology. For many psychology students and
Ph.D. candidates, citations from A. N. Leontiev (and from Vygotsky as
interpreted by Leontiev) became obligatory.
As long as Leontiev's theory was circulating among his peers and
followers, it was considered to possess great socialist, Marxist-Leninist value. He became the most frequently cited psychologist within
the Soviet Union, and this made a powerful impression on both Soviet
and Marxist-oriented Western psychologists. In the 1970s, however,
the psychologists Vasili Davydov and Vladimir Zinchenko and the
philosophers Eric Yudin and Georgy Schedrovitsky demonstrated
through analyses and through various avenues of research that Leontiev's theory possesses little innovative value either for theoretical or
for applied psychology. The critics pointed out that Leontiev's theory
attempts in a circular way to explain activity via activity (Schedrovitsky, 1982), and that Hegel's concept of activity, in its role as the
ultimate explanatory principle, cannot be reduced to the manifestations of individual consciousness, as Leontiev had assumed (Yudin,
1976).
A third attack against Vygotsky focused on his international orientation and cosmopolitanism. For Vygotsky the center of psychological
ideas lay in Central and Western Europe (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France), and he creatively absorbed psychoanalysis, Gestalt
psychology, Piaget's (and Baldwin's) cognitive-developmental approach, various philosophical trends, and some of the cultural anthropological thought of his time. He liked to cite authors such as Freud,
Wertheimer, Koffka, Kohler, K. Lewin, Piaget, C. and K. Buhler,
Stern, Werner, Janet, Baldwin, Levy-Bruhl, and Thurnwald, while
critically using their theories to support his own outlook. But in the
eyes of the Soviet leaders, the Western theories were of a "bourgeois"
nature, and were thus denounced as hostile and dangerous to "Soviet
consciousness." While Vygotsky was not openly criticized for his cosmopolitan orientation—that would have been contradicting the official ideology of the Communist Party during the 1920s-1930s—he
was instead accused of relying on bourgeois, anti-Marxist theories.
Such hidden attacks were mostly coming from forces representing "international patriotism," forces that were in essence reactionary and
anti-Semitic. (After Vygotsky's death, attacks on the "cosmopolitans"
became the official Party line during the 1940s-1950s.)
The fourth attack against Vygotsky and his legacy emerged as a
295
consequence of Luria's psychology expedition to Soviet Central Asia,
which was discussed above. The scientific results of the expedition
were severely criticized not so much because of (the very real) scientific uncertainties, but for the sake of Marxist-Leninist ideological purity. The Soviet apparatchiks of the time declared that even a discussion of the results of the Central Asian studies could be interpreted in
a racist way, and therefore they forbade it. It should be recognized
that on one hand the results could have served the ideological function of justifying the collectivization of the farms, while on the other
hand they contradicted the official myth that in the proletarian paradise of the Soviet Union all "liberated" peoples were both equal and
(cognitively) at an equal level. The second argument won out in debates among the Party members of the Moscow Psychology Institute,
who seem to have recognized the political danger inherent in publishing potentially controversial results.
It should be added that from a scientific point of view, the studies
had three types of limitations, including language differences between the Russian-speaking researchers and their Central Asian interviewees, which led to distorted communication; cultural gaps between the two groups resulting in pronounced misunderstandings;
and a refusal to recognize the social psychological condition of the
Uzbek peasants, many of whom were probably suspicious toward the
Moscovite bearers of a foreign and colonialist culture ready to destroy
them. Later, American authors such as Scribner and Cole (1981) and
the Estonian psychologist Tulviste (1991) (who had been trained by
Luria himself) would argue that "it would be more accurate to interpret subjects' performance in these studies in terms of the demands of
particular task settings than in terms of the general level of subjects'
mental functioning or of a culture" (Daniels, 1996, p. 64). It remains
an open question whether these arguments can fully account for the
results of Luria's expeditions and similar results obtained in other
cross-cultural studies.
POSTSCRIPT
Aleksander I. Solzhenitsyn, the prominent Russian nationalist
writer, is sadly perceptive when he says: "It has always been impossible to learn the truth about anything in our country—now, and always, and from the beginning" (Solzhenitsyn, 1973, p. 92). This also
applies to Vygotsky's life and creation. There are many lacunae in our
296
knowledge about Vygotsky, and especially so about his life in the
years immediately after the Revolution and in the last two years of
his life. Consequently, our essay has been at times speculative, and
future new information on Vygotsky's life may suggest somewhat different interpretations than those developed here.
The fate of the cultural-historical theory developed by Vygotsky
provides a representative indicator of the place of psychology among
the other branches of science and the humanities in the Soviet Union.
It exemplifies how the ideological and personal battles among various
Soviet representatives of Marxism-Leninism shaped the fate of a psychological approach that between the late 1930s and 1950s led a
mostly underground existence, only to be slowly resurrected after
Stalin's death.
One may raise several questions in this context such as: What was,
is, and should be the relationship between psychology and political
ideologies and institutions in Russia/Soviet Union/Russia and elsewhere? Would Vygotsky's theories have been equally fruitful had he
not used Marxian concepts and lines of reasoning? How central were
Marxist notions to his conception of psychology? Would his theories
have survived and developed within the Soviet psychological tradition
without the impact of foreign interest and interpretations? How much
are Vygotsky's Marxist-inspired ideas distorted when they are selectively adopted by Western psychologists most of whom show little if
any interest in Marxist ideas?
Throughout the 20th century psychology in Russia has existed in
the shadows of politics, enjoying true scientific independence only
very rarely. As a recent example of the unhealthy relationship between Russian psychology and politics we may cite President Boris
Yeltsin's unusual Executive Order in 1995, which places psychoanalysis under the protection of the state—something possible only in
Russia. The Order appears to offer a kind of redemption for the fact
that for a long time psychoanalysis had been banned and ridiculed in
the Soviet Union. (In this context, it may be remembered that Vygotsky was severely criticized by various Soviet theoreticians for his psychoanalytic treatment of Hamlet.) Many Russian scientists continue
believing that society can be improved by such decrees. In addition, it
should be remembered that psychological research and teaching in
Russia and the other post-Soviet countries remain more or less centralized, a fact that tends to facilitate government control.
Modern Russian psychologists need to strike a balance between following their own (partially corrupt) traditions and becoming more
Lev S. Vygotsky, Gielen/Jeshmaridian
297
open to international trends in psychology. Decades ago most ties between social scientists in the Soviet Union and the West were cut, a
process that was reinforced during and after the Destalinization Period by the duplicity of many career-oriented scientists. Given that
today only a few powerful psychological traditions exist in Russia,
Vygotsky's theories may serve as a bridge not only between East and
West, but also between the older Soviet and the more recent postSoviet approaches to psychology. His theories remain full of insights,
in part because they tend to be less politicized than those of many of
his peers, in part because he was a synthesizer and an aesthetically
oriented thinker, and in part because he was open to many European
trends in psychology without losing his ability to critically evaluate
them.
Vygotsky's scholarly activity was closely intertwined with his unique
and brilliant personality, and both his life and his scientific activities
have exerted a certain fascination on some Western psychologists,
who rarely criticize his theories in depth. Today, he is one of the few
Russian psychologists regularly cited by Western developmental and
social psychologists and cultural anthropologists. Ironically, some of
his ideas are now being turned into one more paradigm supposedly
representing an important advance over (or an alternative to) Piaget.
Whether this is the best way to make use of his theories seems doubtful to us. While Vygotsky theorized in the grand style, his approach
contains numerous underdeveloped ideas and contradictions. His
Marxist identity could not fuse together either his own divergent
ideas or his own ideas with those of his collaborators and those of the
various European psychologists that he liked to cite. But while his
attempt to juxtapose and integrate phylogenetic, cultural-historical,
and ontogenetic lines of development may not have been completely
successful, it continues to pose an important challenge for modern
social scientists who otherwise would tend to shy away from such
broad comparisons.
It is Vygotsky's general approach to psychological questions rather
than the details of his theories and experimental studies that remains of value today.
NOTES
1. For different reactions to the legacy of the cultural-historical school, see some of
the writings of the Marxist-inspired representatives of the "Critical Psychology"
school in Germany (see Thielen [1981] for references).
298
2. Marxism is a very difficult theory to define, in part because Marx himself changed
his conceptions over time, and in part because later Marxist thinkers developed a
broad variety of viewpoints. In the present context it is important to note that
Vygotsky's free appropriation of Marxist ideas stood in contrast to the "hard-boiled"
attitudes of the leaders of the Party (Trotsky, Lenin, Zinoviev, Stalin), for whom
Marxism became an organizational ideology well suited to the establishment of a
totalitarian state able to crush all opposition. Because our essay focuses on Vygotsky's life and position in the developing Soviet society, we cannot describe here in
detail the various Marxist positions that came to the fore in the U.S.S.R. during
the 1920s and 1930s. For instance, the essay contains an implicit emphasis on
historical materialism rather than dialectical materialism because such an emphasis is useful for a description of Vygotsky's personal and ideological struggles.
3. Russian psychologists tend to mean by the term "method" the overall approach
they are taking to psychology. For Vygotsky and his followers, the cultural-historical approach constituted a new and superior method or "paradigm" that avoided
the reductionism inherent in the objective and positivistic schools of Pavlov, Bekhterev, and Watson, while also steering clear of Wundt's narrow focus on the structural analysis of immediate conscious experience.
4. Vygotsky's Weltschmerz and his alienation from society on the eve of the 1917 Revolution were hardly unique among the Russian intellectuals and artists of that
time. A. N. Leontiev would later claim that Vygotsky had already become a Marxist
before the Revolution, but he may have advanced this claim in part for political
reasons (Yaroshevsky, 1996, p. 162). Consequently, it remains unclear how deep
Vygotsky's ideological understanding of and his commitment to Marxism were before and around the time of the Civil War, or what the nature of his political involvements were (see Ivanov [1968] for a brief discussion of Vygotsky's early activities). He did, however, have a better understanding of Marx and Engels than
many of his peers who had shown limited if any interest in Marx before the Revolution, but later tried to hide their ignorance beneath a veneer of Marxist-Leninist
quotes and slogans.
5. Stalin was certainly skillful at setting up situations in which potentially powerful
Party members could and would neutralize and destroy each other. Still, it is not
always clear to what degree he deliberately planned these situations and to what
degree he merely exploited them. Similar questions may be raised about Mao's
incitation of, and reaction to, the "Let a Hundred Flowers Bloom" movement taking
place in China during the 1950s.
6. Similar mechanisms of self-deception and motivated inability to fully understand
the destructive and inherently authoritarian nature of Marxist revolutionary action may be discerned among some Western sympathizers with and observers of
the unfolding events in the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, and elsewhere. The utterly ruthless Lenin, in turn, contemptuously referred to the more
naively idealistic among those sympathizers as "useful idiots."
7. For a perceptive cross-cultural analysis of monotheism and its inherent tendencies
toward intolerance, see Hsu (1981; especially chapters 9-10).
8. In another time and place, Vygotsky's observations could well be considered perceptive and going beyond mere labeling. Given the then prevailing politics in the Soviet Union, however, his observation placed Piaget in the company of those who
had already been branded for their unacceptable views. In this sense, Vygotsky was
indeed labeling Piaget, and many of his peers would have understood him that way.
In general, however, Vygotsky considered Piaget's work on the development of cognitive structures in children as the foundation for anyone entering the field, himself included (Van der Veer & Valsiner, 1991). This did not keep Vygotsky from
arguing against Piaget that "egocentric speech" does not mean so much "autistic"
withdrawal but rather socially oriented expansion. In his view, it represents a de-
299
velopmental stage in the socially-mediated internalization of speech which is derived from the child's efforts at social communication and self-control.
9. When Lenin died, he and his followers had already created the basic structures of
the Soviet State machinery and of Soviet political culture. These included the oneparty state, the systematic use of terror, the systematic instigation and exploitation
of class hatreds, the continual use of invectives against the supposed enemies of
the just cause of Bolshevism, the tendency to think in Marxian socioeconomic and
political abstractions thereby dehumanizing people, the personality cult, the state's
propaganda machinery designed to perpetuate this cult, and above all the willingness to destroy millions of people in order to achieve political goals (Figes, 1996).
Supported by the Bolshevik political culture of the day, Stalin took over this state
machinery and bent it to his personal and political goals.
10. Other important critics of the culture-historical school include the philosopherpsychologist Rubinstein and some of his students such as Brushlinsky. Rubinstein
(1957) pointed out that the culture-historical school overemphasizes the externalsocial influences on psychological experience and functioning at the expense of inner subjective factors and correlated higher nervous system activities (a Pavlovian
concept). Rubinstein's almost scholastic approach was much appreciated not only in
the Soviet Union but also in East Germany.
REFERENCES
Buhler, K. (1927). Die Krise der Psychologie [The crisis of psychology]. Jena, Germany:
Cole, M., & Scribner, S. (1974). Culture and thought: A psychosocial introduction. New
York: Wiley.
Conquest, R. (1986). The harvest of sorrow. Soviet collectivization and the terror-famine.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Crossman, R.H.S. (Ed.). (1950). The god that failed. Six studies in Communism. London: Hamilton.
Daniels, H. (Ed.).(1996). An introduction to Vygotsky. London: Routledge.
Davydov, V. (1981). The category of activity and mental reflection in the theory of A.N.
Leontiev. Psychology, 21, 50-76.
Durkheim, E. (1926). Elementary forms of religious life (transl. by J.W. Swain). New
York: Macmillan.
Figes, O. (1996). A people's tragedy: A history of the Russian revolution. New York:
Viking.
Getzler, I. (1967). Martov: A political biography of a Russian social democrat. Cambridge University Press.
Hsu, F.L.K. (1981). Americans and Chinese: Passage to differences (3rd ed.). Honolulu,
HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Ivanov, V.V. (1968). Introduction. In L.S. Vygotsky, Psikhologia iskusstva [The psychology of art]. Moscow: Iskusstvo.
Ivic, I. (1989). Profiles of educators: Lev S. Vygotsky (1896-1934). Prospects XIX, 3,
427-36.
Joravsky, D. (1989). Russian psychology: A critical history. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Koestler, A. (1941). Darkness at noon. New York: Macmillan.
Koltsova, V.A., Oleinik, Y.N., Gilgen, A.R., & Gilgen, C.K. (Eds.). (1996). Post-Soviet
perspectives on Russian psychology. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotsky's psychology: A biography of ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
300
Kozulin, A. (1996). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology: Vygotsky, his disciples
and critics. In H. Daniel (Ed.), An introduction to Vygotsky (pp. 99-122). London:
Routledge.
Lenin, V.I. (1908/1947). Materialism and Empiriocriticism: Critical comments on a reactionary philosophy. Moscow: Politizdat.
Leontiev, A.A. (1983). Tvorcheskii put' A.N. Leontieva [The productive career of A.N.
Leontiev]. In A.V. Zaporozhets, V.P. Zynchenko, O.V. Ovchinnikova, & O.K.
Tikhomirov (Eds.), A.N. Leontiev i sovremennaya psikhologiia [A.N. Leontiev and
modern psychology](pp. 6-39). Moscow: Moscow State University.
Leontiev, A.N. (1932). Studies on the cultural development of the child. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 40, 52-83.
Leontiev, A.N. (1935/1980). Ovladenie uchaschimisia nauchnymi poniatiiami kak problema pedagogicheskoi psikhologii [The acquisition of scientific concepts by schoolchildren as a problem of educational psychology]. In Khrestomatiia povozrastnoi i
pedagogicheskoi psikhologii, Vol. 1, pp. 173—186). Moscow: Moscow State University.
Leontiev, A.N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, and personality. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Lewin, M. (1995). Russia / USSR / Russia: The drive and drift of a superstate. New York:
The New Press.
Luria, A.R. (1974). Ob istoricheskom razvitii poznavatel'nykh protsessov [Historical development of cognitive processes]. Moscow: Nauka.
Luria, A.R. (1976). Cognitive development: Its cultural and social foundations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Luria. A.R. (1979). The making of mind: A personal account of Soviet psychology. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1950). Briefwechsel [Exchange of letters]. Berlin.
McNeal, R.H. (1988). Stalin: Man and ruler. New York: New York University Press.
Rieber, R.W., & Carton A.S. (Eds.). (1987, 1992). The collected works of L.S. Vygotsky
(Vols. 1-2). New York: Plenum.
Rigby, T.H. (1966). Stalin. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rubinstein, S.L. (1957). Bitie i soznanie [Being and consciousness]. Moscow.
Schedrovitsky, G.P. (1982). The Mozart of psychology: An imaginary exchange of views.
In K. Levitin (Ed.), One is not born a personality (pp. 59-63). Moscow: Progress.
Scribner, S., & Cole, M. (1981). The psychological consequences of literacy. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Solzhenitsyn, A.I. (1973). The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956: An experiment in literary
investigation. New York: Harper and Row.
Soyfer, V.N. (1994). Lysenko and the tragedy of Soviet science. (L. Gruliow & R. Gruliow,
Trans.). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Takooshian, H., & Trusov, V.P. (1992). Post-Soviet psychology. In U.P. Gielen, L.L.
Adler, & N.A. Milgram (Eds.), Psychology in international perspective: 50 years of
the International Council of Psychologists (pp. 54-69). Amsterdam: Swets and
Zeitlinger.
Thielen, M. (1981). Kulturhistorische Schule [Culture-historical school]. In G. Rexilius
& S. Grubitzsch (Eds.), Handbuch psychologischer Begriffe. Mensch und Gesellschaft in der Psychologic [Handbook of psychological concepts. Man and society
in psychology] (pp. 600-610). Hamburg: Rowohlt.
Tulviste, P. (1991). Cultural-historical development of verbal thinking: A psychological
study. Commack, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Valsiner, J. (1988). Developmental psychology in the Soviet Union. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University Press.
Van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis.
Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.
301
Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1982). Sobranie sochinenii [Collected works], (Vols. 1-2). Moscow: Pedagogika.
Vygotsky, L.S., & Luria, A.R. (1930/1993). Studies on the history of behavior: Ape, primitive, and child. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. (Edited and translated by Victor I. Golod
& Jane E. Knox. Originally published in 1930).
Yaroshevsky, M.G.(1989). Lev Vygotsky. Moscow: Progress.
Yaroshevsky, M.G. (1990). A history of psychology. Moscow: Progress.
Yaroshevsky, M.G. (1996). Marxism in Soviet psychology: The social role of Russian
science. In V.A. Koltsova, Y.N. Oleinik, A.R. Gilgen, & C.K Gilgen (Eds.), PostSoviet perspectives on Russian psychology (pp. 161-186). Westport, CT: Greenwood
Press.
Yudin, E. (1976). Deiatel'nost kak ob'iasnitel'nyi printsyp i kak predmet nauchnogo
issledovaniia [Activity as an explanatory principle and as a subject of scientific
study]. Voprosi Filosofii, 5, 65-78.
Zinchenko, P. (1939/1984). The problem of involuntary memory. Soviet Psychology, 22
(2), 55-111.

Lev S. Vygotsky: The Man and the Era

Transcription

Similar documents

Jean Piaget vs. Lev Vygotsky

Name: Sarah Jo Ward

less 3/4 comparing piaget and vygotsky

Register by writing to: [email protected]

Baumrind, D. (1966). Effects of Authoritative Parental Control on

- Scientific Research Publishing

educational psychology: a century of contributions

Sociocultural approaches to learning and development: A